I have been reading the introduction to The Photography Reader and it keeps bringing me back to a particular photograph. It is an image of my parents with my younger sister. I should say that this was before digital photography and the image was discovered on my father’s computer after his death. He must have saved it digitally at some stage.
In the introduction to ‘The Photography Reader’, Jean-Paul Satre is quoted as observing that a particular image is of Peter who is now in Berlin but the image is of Peter who lived last year in Paris. He questions why the mind goes to the Peter of Berlin through the Peter who lived last year in Paris.
His point is not about the image itself but on the use of it, such as for tokens of family or personal relations. The viewer’s perception of the image will be different dependent on their relation or otherwise to the image.
So, for my image, it brings back memories of my mother and father. It also asks me some questions. Where are my brothers – the image is clearly from a family holiday but I don’t remember the holiday at all. The only thing I do remember is my sister’s coat. Also, my father has his camera around his neck so, this suggests that I probably took the photograph with my camera (or did my father have 2). How did he end up with the resultant print?
Should a photograph bring back memories or is it a memory. John Berger said ‘memory is normally imbedded in an ongoing experience of a person who is remembering….’. If a photograph isn’t altered it is an authentic record of an event but if it’s not in context (no clue as to what occurred before or after the image was taken) it is also not very authentic. I know my image was a family holiday but I have no memory of the holiday.
So, is this a real memory for me? I believe the image is unaltered so does that make it authentic?
I don’t have any context for the image (apart from it being a holiday I don’t remember). We only ever holidayed in Wales so I assume that is where it was taken. Does this make it not authentic?